Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview
of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the
issues discussed in an opinion.

In this criminal appeal, the appellate entity analyzes and considers the efficacy of Crawford v. Washington as juxtaposed to an excited utterance hearsay statement. Additionally, the appellant challenges the refusal of the Circuit Judge to instruct the jury on mere association and mere suspicion. Finally, appellant contends the Trial Judge erred in refusing to allow a witness to testify that a third party confessed to her that he shot the decedent.

Fassett obtained a default judgment from Evans in an action for damages for trespass and taking timber in violation of the timber statute. Evans appeals the trial court's refusal to set aside the default judgment, arguing that he was never served with the summons and complaint and that the judgment was the result of mistake or excusable neglect. We affirm.

Boat dealership appeals the award of damages to buyers of defective boat. The dealer argues the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial absolute or a new trial nisi remittitur because the buyers allegedly failed to prove damages. We affirm.

In affirming the circuit court's order confirming an arbitration award, determines there was no showing the arbitrator displayed a manifest disregard or perverse minsconstruction of the applicable law, the only issue presented on appeal.

In this criminal matter, Jones appeals his conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine. He contends the trial judge erred in failing to suppress the drug evidence because it was tainted fruit seized in an illegal detention following a traffic stop. Specifically, Jones asserts the officer's actions during the traffic stop amounted to an illegal detention exceeding the scope of the traffic stop.

The South Carolina Department of Agriculture appeals the decision of the special referee finding Respondents were entitled to recover damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorney's fees from the Warehouse Receipts Guaranty Fund.

In this domestic relations case, the court analyzes two issues: (1) whether the Family Court abused its discretion by failing to set aside a consent judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) on the basis of a prenuptial agreement; and (2) whether the Family Court erred in awarding the husband attorney’s fees.

In this criminal appeal, the appellant contends the trial judge erred: (1) in failing to grant a directed verdict where there was no direct or substantial circumstantial evidence that appellant killed the victim; (2) by refusing to instruct the jury on mere presence; and (3) in finding appellant failed to present evidence of juror misconduct and denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Debra Clinton appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of West American Insurance Company, finding West American made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage. Clinton argues the trial court erred in finding West American made a meaningful offer to Joy Clinton, because although she specifically rejected UIM coverage on the offer form, she filled in "25/50" on the blank line located on the UIM offer form and no premium amount was filled in by the agent or insurer. We affirm and adopt the trial court's order as part of the opinion of this court.

Karl Wallace was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. He argues the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the victim's sister regarding an alleged prior act of criminal sexual conduct with a minor under the common plan or scheme exception to State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923), and Rule 404(b), SCRE. We reverse and remand for a new trial, finding an insufficient connection between the crime charged and the prior bad act. Further, we found the trial court erred in redacting the sister's testimony to make it more similar to the crime charged.

This is an appeal from a workers' compensation award, compensating Samuel K. Peoples for sixty-eight percent permanent partial disability to his right lower extremity. Henry Company appeals arguing Peoples' injury to his Achilles tendon was an injury to the foot and not the leg. We affirm, finding sufficient evidence that Peoples suffered an injury to the leg.